A PLAIN fault IN Plain-English. AND The same in Doctor FEARNE: Who (upon different grounds) build one Error; but this is the best of it, that their difference destroys the same Error, which they would build upon the ruin of PARLIAMENTS.  
LONDON, Printed for T. underhill. 1643.   

A PLAIN fault IN Plain- English.  
AS two Ships setting sail out of one Harbour, the one going to the West, & the other to the East, yet (if they continue in that course) must needs meet together in the wrong side of the world: So Plain-English going one way in an intention for the public, and Doctor Fearne, (going another way against the public) meet in one and the same wrong opinion and error, destructive to Parliaments.  
plain-english will destroy Parliaments, by the people's resuming their power, because the Parliament goes not high enough, in terms, Conditions, and Actions.  
The Doctor, and his fellow-Malignants, will have the Parliament dissolved, because it goes too high, and will not lay down the commonwealth at the feet of the Cavaliers, pretending the name of the King.  
So both speak to have it done, but upon contrary Reasons, confuting each other: For, if the Reason of Plain-English be good, the doctor's Reason is nought; and if the doctor's Reason be good, plain-english's Reason is nought. But the Doctor saith Plain-English's Reason is nought, and Plain-English saith the doctor's Reason is nought, and I believe both, and so the business is ended.  
Yet to talk and walk a little farther with them, (but setting one on the one hand, and the other on the other, and myself in the middle to keep them from fighting) I would ask them some Questions of justice, Honesty, and Reason.  
First, Is it just that the debts of the kingdom should be paid? and if so, I entreat my fellow-walkers to tell me who shall pay them, if the Parliament shall be dissolved? If they say, Another Parliament, how be they sure that another Parliament may not be more displeasing to them then this, and deserve to be dissolved as well as this?  
Secondly, Did not men lend upon the Act of continuing this Parliament? So that the Act of Continuance is the very Sinew of their security, and that which drew them into the Contract of lending. And of whom shall our Brethren the Scots require the performance of public Faith, if the Parliament (that gave this Faith) be annihilated and dissolved? And is it honest to borrow money upon Security, and then to take away the Security, upon which it was borrowed? Surely, he that borrows money upon Bonds, and then takes away the Bonds, deserves another name besides that of an honest man, and must look to borrow no more of any that know it. And thus the Act of Continuance is turned into an Act of Cousinage, while it is made a Lure to draw in Trust, but disabled to perform it.  
Thirdly, In Reason, or in many Reasons, (if any Reason can be alleged, for which indeed none can be sufficient) it is for the public good, Quia periclitatur salus populi, The public is in danger. This public danger must be so evidently and apparently caused by the Parliament, that the whole People, or (at least) the greater part of it must plainly see it, judge it, and agree in it: But while there are two parts, one that saith the danger is caused by the Parliaments ●ising too high, a second by the Parliaments going too low, a third beléeving neither, (for neither of these believes one another) but thinking the Parliament goes aright, or (at least) a tolerable way: How shall we think so many dissenting parts will agree upon one evident cause of danger? And of so many parts and sides differ, who shall be the judge of the controversy between the Contestants? Surely, if the Parliament may continue but till these three parts agree, either upon the Reason for which the Parliament shall be dissolved, as ●●using a public danger, or upon a judge to determine and ●udge their agreement, the Parliament may continue long enough, and by the Parliaments not ending, this Question may be at an end. And certainly this Question was raised in a most unseasonable, and therefore most unreasonable time: For, (when the people are divided into divers opinions, as well as Armies) is that a fit time to speak of agreeing together, in reassuming their power, when they disagree in the Reasons of it unto death?  
But again, if the Votes of the people must be gathered by ● judge, where shall this judge sit when he gathers these Votes? Must the people meet all together in one place, or be taken by poll in their several parishes? If they meet in one place, that will end the Question, by putting out of question, that Salus Populi periclitabitur, public danger will certainly follow, by this way of avoiding public danger: For you must bring two sorts of people together, that have main Armies on each side, and if so, whether will not the people be in more danger by this meeting, then by the Parliament? but this the Swords and Guns will soon tell you. And if he must go or send into parishes, surely I think Plain-English will be loath to compute the Votes of the parishes in Oxford, or Newcastle, nor the Doctor to take the Votes in Windsor or London. And if the Parliament may continue until this polling be done, I think it will be as good as an Act of Continuance.  
But yet further, if most Votes must carry it, it will be a legal Quare, Whether those that have less than 40. s. per Ann. shall have Votes, which is denied in the choice of the Knights of the Shire?  
Again, Whether those that are maintained by the Parishes shall give Votes, who have no Votes in choosing of Burgesses, and especially whether such men shall be fit to judge of public danger, for the dissolving of a Parliament?  
But thus Error is infinite in by-paths, and wanderings, and thus it falls out, when men (leaving the old lawful, and fundamental way) will tread out paths of their own making, and being only of private condition, will take upon them the Government or rather the Dissolution of the frame of the public. But this is the common fault of mutable and everrepining mankind: If Ziklag be burnt, and wives and children carried away, than they talk of stoning David. But if the foundations be thus destroyed, what hath the righteous done? Surely it had been a point of discretion, (I will not say of civility and good manners) to have spent some thoughts first in a fair and admonitory way to have obtained this end, before they fall to destroying and rooting out Foundations, and plucking up Parliaments, and consequently Kingdoms by the roots: For certainly, if such a thing should be done, (which indeed is as unseasonable as it is destructive) there could be no freedom, certainty, nor continuance in Parliaments, & then, as good to have none at all. They must vote like men in chains, not their own votes and consciences, but the votes and opinions of others: and they must not promise nor contract any thing for the public, except they send home to know their opinion that must rule them in their Votes. And certainly if this way be throughly followed, it may lead men, as well to reassume Laws, as power of Law-making, and then into what a Chaos of confusion do they resolve (or rather dissolve) this ancient, and well-grounded Government?  
But (as I said) if they would have had such a thing done a handsome way, these re-assumers should have brought the people together, to have found out, and agreed upon some invincible and manifest Reasons (for such they had need to be) to prove that the Parliament should cease for the public good, and so propose them to the Parliament: For, they know the Parl. hath power to dissolve itself, and it is very preposterous to thrust them out of doors, before you ask them whether they will go out voluntarily of themselves, especially being settled by an Act of Parl. And I assure you, by that knowledge I have of many (if not most) of the House of Commons, if you can ●hew a way how Religion, Liberty and safety, and consequently the Common good, can be better settled by their absence then presence, (that so they may leave their banishment, and return to their homes) I think you may have easily not their places only, but their thanks: For, little pleasure, and certainly less profit it is for them to leave their own businesses and Families, (I say not Recreations) to work and toil in public businesses, yea to be often put to make brick without straw, even to work impossibilities, and to please two contrarieties, or else to be beaten (on all sides) with such terrible taskmasters as these reassumers.  
But perchance too much hath been said against those cruel, unreasonable, and unjust speeches of reassuming, especially where the people, peers and King have given their Votes and Faith (by an Act of Continuance) that there shall be no reassuming. And if nothing else, yet let God's own wonderful hand stretched out in working for the Parliament, and by it, stop the mouths that are opened against it. It was wont to be the common language of the Petitions of most Counties, to acknowledge the great blessings God had sent to them, by the unwearied labour and service of the Parliament, as the taking away the High-Commission, Star-Chamber, and Ship-money, &c. but now advantages and exceptions must be sought out against it. And admit there are some failings, and some weaknesses; was there not a great Apostle that gloried in infirmities, because when he was weak, he was made strong? and no wonder, for God himself had told him, that in weakness his strength doth appear. And appeared it hath, since God (by them) hath overthrown such strongholds, as former Parliaments have not been able to remove, but have rather strengthened against themselves. Do not weaken those whom God doth strengthen for himself, but rather join with God in strengthening their weakness by supplies, prayers, and (if you will) faithful, and petitionary advice: and do not fight against a Miracle of God's making: a miracle, I say, (for such our forefathers would have esteemed a Parliament settled by an Act of Continuance) destroy not then what he hath so wonderfully built, neither despise his building, though it appear, not very glorious in fleshly eyes: Rather say with the Prophet, 
Hag. 2. 3.  Who is among you that saw this house in her first glory? and how do you see it now? is it not in your eyes (in comparison of it) as nothing? Yet now be strong O Zerubbabel, and be strong O Joshua the son of Josedech (the High Priest) and be strong ye people of the land, and work; for I am with you (saith the Lord of Hosts) The Glory of this latter House shall be greater than of the frrmer (saith the Lord of Hosts) and in this place I will give peace (saith the Lord of Hosts) And let all the people say. Amen.  
FINIS.